Of Interest

In an order laced with language accusing President Donald Trump of attempting to rewrite immigration laws, a federal judge based in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government late Monday night from denying asylum to those crossing over the southern border between ports of entry.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point ‘”irreconcilably conflicts” with immigration law and the “expressed intent of Congress.”
“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at “increased risk of violence and other harms at the border” if the administration’s rule is allowed to go into effect.

Related posts:

57 Responses to “Irreconcilably Conflicts”

frank uible says:

I’m not a gun person, I’ve never owned a firearm, I don’t recall ever shooting a gun, until very recently I’ve never planned on owning or shooting a gun. Nonetheless if we are going to have open borders, then I’m going to become like Annie Oakley (not only because we’re both frpm Ohio). Please beware that it is in your interest to refrain from entering my home as an uninvited stranger.

Of course Tigar’s insane ruling is about border security. If ILLEGAL ALIENS can cross anywhere and still request asylum, there’s no incentive for them to attempt to cross legally. Bottom line is it’s time to build the wall. Once we do that, we can figure out what to do about the ILLEGAL ALIENS who are already here. There’s no sense bailing out the water until we plug the hole in the boat.

Educate yourselves on the insanity of our current open borders policy …

Williamstown Resident — go to the source and read the opinion and then read the opinion of the right-leaning appellate judge who upheld the decision. Irrespective of whether you think this represents good policy, it’s unquestionably the policy required by governing law. If you don’t like that, lobby Congress to change the law. (Or do you only like “rule of law” when it supports your position?)

And again, when’s the last time you tried crossing a border into the U.S? “Open borders” is a laughably misleading way of describing current border policy.

Open borders is not however, laughable in terms of what the liberal wing of the democratic party wants.

That’s only remotely true if you (1) use “open borders” as a misleading dysphemism for progressive border policy; or (2) (mis)characterize the entire “liberal wing of the Democratic party” in terms of the views of several of its most radical/least thoughtful members. My guess is that you’re doing a combination of both.

Among other things, there are strong policy arguments for adopting a different standard of permissiveness when it comes to who is allowed entry to the country (border policy) and for who you later deport (deportation/immigration policy). Whether you agree with them or not, this distinction remains front and center in the liberal wing of the Democratic party–and so characterizing the liberal view on borders based on the materially different liberal view on deportation leads to mischaracterization.

Note: I’m not arguing that liberals don’t advocate for a permissive immigration policy, or that the liberal view on borders isn’t significantly less restrictive than the conservative view. I’m not even arguing (here) that the liberal view on borders/immigration is better. I just think we should be honest and accurate about how we describe things — especially in a thread with presumably intelligent and well-educated commenters.

Debate is better when it’s on real issues. If you (anon/Williamstown Resident/whoever else) think that conservative immigration or border policy is better, you shouldn’t have to mischaracterize liberal immigration or border policy to show that.

I never argued the legal merits of the EO. If it’s illegal, it’s illegal. Maybe we shall see how SCOTUS rules next? My point was merely that abl’s suggestion that this ruling doesn’t impact border security is laughable. We are all less safe today because of it. Ask Mollie Tibbets family what they think of the groups that somehow are granted standing to sue the US Government on behalf of non-citizens. Ask Kate Steinle’s parents how they feel about judges who don’t throw those suits out for lack of standing because they want to foist their liberal views on the entire country.

I’m rooting hard for POTUS to stay the course and shutdown the government if he doesn’t get his $5b for the wall. That would make for a very merry Christmas.

The left is absolutely in favor of real barriers to entry on the border (including walls in some places!). It’s entirely consistent to be for numerous significant real barriers to entry and yet be against Trump’s wall.

This is the problem with debate in our country right now. If your side has merits, you should be able to win on the merits. Instead, though, we’re relegated to these sorts of childish discussions that rest largely on mischaracterization.

Everyone agrees that border security is important. The question is what the best strategic path forward is for border security in a world of scarce resources and in a country with many needs. I’m very skeptical that Trump’s wall policy was the result of careful strategic planning–as opposed to an off-the-cuff soundbite–but if it was, let’s have that discussion.

Demographics don’t favor leftist at all. Leftist are breeding themselves out of existence thanks to their bad habit of taking on high student loans, forgetting to buy a house, and taking on unnecessary levels of higher levels of education.

The result is delayed marriages and reduced fertility rates. Meanwhile, birthrates are falling for all races and ethnicities.

The good news for conservatives is that the population is getting increasingly old. We know that people become more conservative as they age. Look at me, I was a revolutionary Communist in my college years. Today, I’m proud Trump supporter.

I was in UT last month. It looks to me like the young, white, Mormon birth rate is doing quite well. There were little children all over the place. I’m confident these children will inherit a better nation which has less room for anti-white hate, anti-white discrimination and a lot less affection for the socialist policies than would turn the U.S. into another Venezuela.

The left wants- AND HAS- sanctuary cities. These are cities that do not enforce immigration law.

How can anyone claim with a straight face that a policy that does not support any enforcement of immigration law in the United States- when millions of people are here illegally- is not an open border policy?

Ok then. The left wants relaxed border security, and no enforcement of immigration laws in the United States. Not open borders… right.

This reminds me of the left on guns.

The left also wants to confiscate firearms. Yet the left will advocate for the confiscation of firearms one second, and then claim that the left is not for the confiscation of firearms the next.

The left is not for open borders you see… the left just does not think we should enforce immigration laws in the United States. The left wants sanctuary cities… but not open borders.

Again, if you believe your position has merit, you shouldn’t have to mischaracterize the opposing position to win an argument. For instance, it is obviously false that “the left does not support any enforcement of immigration law in the United States.” The left’s position on immigration laws is more forgiving than the right’s — undoubtedly — but to say that it supports no enforcement whatsoever is comically incorrect.

I’m beginning to wonder whether you actually do understand the left’s position on any of these issues, or whether you’re opposed to the left’s views in part because you’ve been sold some ridiculous caricature of their views. I imagine you’ll spend some time (hopefully) reading up a bit more on what, for instance, the term “sanctuary city” actually means. Sadly, I don’t get the sense that you’re the sort of person who would be hypothetically willing to change your mind or admit you made a mistake. But then, at least, you could have real discussions about real issues and not just yell angrily at your straw men.

Here is an example of a sanctuary city policy. The policy includes mandates not to inform federal authorities when someone who is here illegally and arrested (put in jail) is wanted by federal agents (ICE detainer requests).

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issues detainers and requests for notification to law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to provide notice of its intent to assume custody of an individual detained in federal, state, or local custody. Detainers are placed on aliens arrested on criminal charges for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe that they are removable from the United States.”

What does it mean that San Francisco is a Sanctuary City?

In 2013, San Francisco passed the “Due Process for All” Ordinance. This ordinance limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person’s release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests, sometimes referred to as “ICE holds.”

These ordinances were last amended in July 2016. Under current law, City employees may not use City resources to:

Assist or cooperate with any ICE investigation, detention, or arrest relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of federal immigration law.
Ask about immigration status on any application for City benefits, services, or opportunities, except as required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision.
Limit City services or benefits based on immigration status, unless required by federal or state statute or regulation, public assistance criteria, or court decision.
Provide information about the release status or personal information of any individual, except in limited circumstances when law enforcement may respond to ICE requests for notification about when an individual will be released from custody.
Detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody.

Again, go and look at the left’s actual positions (and not their positions as explained by Hannity or Ben Shapiro). I’m becoming increasingly convinced that you genuinely do not understand what the left actually has proposed with respect to borders or firearms, or understand what a “sanctuary city” is.

There are strong policy and constitutional reasons (see above) to be a “sanctuary city.” These reasons are largely distinct from the reasons that would motivate wanting to control the borders. Whether you agree or disagree with them, it would be entirely consistent for someone to believe in San Francisco’s policy with respect to ICE and yet support Trump’s wall. Likewise, it would be consistent for someone to believe in very lax border security and yet support cities holding civil immigration offenders for ICE’s benefit. These are different issues.

Is there relation between immigration policy and border policy? Absolutely! Obviously! What we do with immigration will impact what happens on our borders. But that doesn’t mean that someone who wants to find a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. must also be in favor of more relaxed border security (let alone “open borders”). Indeed, there are a number of Republicans (including, at times, Marco Rubio) whose position could be characterized as forgiving when it comes to immigration policy but unforgiving when it comes to border policy.

Finally, I’m aware of no mainstream movement toward “open borders.” The left wants a more permissive border policy — absolutely! But that would still include numerous barriers to entry, checkpoints, screenings, etc. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the left’s position on borders (as well as the left’s position on immigration). “Open borders are bad” is not one–because the left is 100% for border control (just somewhat different–and overall less–than the right).

This is one of the deep shames of this presidency. Either because he does not understand these policy issues, or because he has a deeply cynical view of political power, Trump has persistently pushed these “debates”–if you can even call them that anymore–to the lowest common denominator. We should be having real discussions about whether the left’s strategic plan for border control represents a better use of scarce societal resources than the right’s. But instead, we get anon above, and others, who dodge the important and tricky issues at the heart of these discussions to rely on misleading characterizations of their opponents’ positions to persuade and motivate.

I quoted the position from the San Francisco City government webpage. It is the official position of the city.

We could go on and on quoting popular politicians as well.

Ok…

I shall ask our friends on the left this then…

abl-

Do you believe that someone who is here illegally has the same rights as a citizen?

Yes or no? If maybe- when?

Is someone who is here illegally entitled to the same programs as a citizen? Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security?

Yes, no, if sometimes? When?

Are they entitled to remain here, regardless of whether or not federal agents have detainer requests?

Always? Sometimes? When?

Should someone who is here illegally be allowed to remain here after committing a crime?

If yes, which crimes? When?

Should someone who is here illegally bellowed to stay here after being convicted of a crime and doing time in jail or prison?

Yes, no, maybe? When?

What is the position- exactly?

I believe that there should be an easier path to citizenship- but that citizenship is earned if you came here illegally. That we should control our borders, and that if you are here illegally you should not draw on programs until you have become a citizen.

My point is that what you quoted re SF doesn’t support the point you made earlier: what defines a city as a “sanctuary city” (an admittedly mushy category) is not its wholesale failure to enforce immigration law, as you imply.

Moreover, I’m arguing that you can answer “yes” to each of your questions above and still strongly believe that we should be doing everything possible to limit illegal border crossings. Being pro immigration doesn’t entail being anti-border security (let alone pro-open borders).

And, returning to the origins of this discussion, wanting to enforce our immigration laws as written with respect to asylum applicants definitely doesn’t entail being pro-open borders.

Do you believe that a person who is here illegally has the same rights and entitlements as a citizen?

Yes or no?

For rights? Largely yes: the rights conveyed by the Constitution are not, for the most part, limited to citizens. In the words of the great liberal lion, Justice Scalia, “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” (And, although I couldn’t find similarly plain Scalia quotes about other parts of the Bill of Rights, most are similarly well-established to apply to citizens and non-citizens, including undocumented non-citizens, alike.)

Re “entitlements,” assuming you’re referring to social safety net programs, the descriptive answer is mostly no–despite the fact that many undocumented immigrants pay into these programs.

I’m not sure by what you mean re “biblical.” But in any event, most of these rights in question are rights against government oppression. For example, the reason to prevent the government from suppressing speech it dislikes is to guard against governmental tyranny. And I agree that there’s a moral component of these rights: it’s morally concerning for the government to oppress a population that it controls. In many senses, undocumented immigrants are especially vulnerable, and so I am especially morally concerned about government oppression when it comes to undocumented immigrants. (On the other hand, the unique circumstances surrounding undocumented immigrants may give rise to different considerations that dictate different–and not always necessarily greater–moral and constitutional reaches of the protections in question.)

I also 100% believe that Williams students/staff/faculty possess the same rights against government oppression as anyone else. The issue is that Williams College (and Ace Hardware … etc) is not the government, and so the same concerns re government oppression and government tyranny don’t apply. When Ace Hardware tells a paying customer that she can’t invite any speaker she want to set up in Ace Hardware’s display corner, it’s being oppressive and tyrannical in a very general sense–but governmental oppression or tyranny is not at issue.

So, there is no morality involved in individual liberties? Or is it that only the government needs to be moral?

I explicitly answered this: “And I agree that there’s a moral component of these rights.”

When you say “liberty” or “freedom,” there’s an implicit from whom or from what that you need to answer. I’ve been very clear in my answer to this question: the Constitution itself, and the underlying moral tenants that it attempts to codify, answer that question very clearly (for the most part): the who/what in question is the state.

The fact that these legal and moral rights protect against state oppression doesn’t make them less individual (moral or legal) rights. You seem to believe that there might be some broader liberty that extends beyond that, especially when it comes to speech. But I’m not sure what that’d be–you certainly haven’t articulated anything (nor has anyone else on these boards). I’m aware of no serious arguments for unlimited rights of this nature (like a moral right to speak wherever or whenever you want free of any attempts, including private attempts, at curtailment). It’s obvious, for example, that you don’t have a legal or a moral right to march into Ace Hardware and demand that you be given a corner of their space to speak about a topic of your choosing. The fact that it is Ace Hardware saying “no dice” and not the State of Iowa matters — because for both moral and legal purposes, the from what part of the freedom/liberty in question matters.

Scalia was not talking about the same due process rights given to citizens.

I don’t follow. This is absolutely the same due process right that protects citizens, if that’s what you’re talking about. If you mean that due process is a somewhat context-dependent right and therefore what it means to give immigrants due process in deportation proceedings differs from what it means to give due process to, say, citizen government employees being disciplined — well, that’s an obvious and uncontroversial point. The specific process that is legally (and morally) required will differ based on the circumstances in question.

The sheriff blamed California’s sanctuary law for preventing local authorities from reporting Perez Arriaga to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency for his previous arrests, adding that if he had been deported, Singh would still be alive.

“This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE,” Christianson said at a news conference. “We were prohibited, law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh. I’m suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasn’t restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.

The sheriff blamed California’s sanctuary law for preventing local authorities from reporting Perez Arriaga to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency for his previous arrests, adding that if he had been deported, Singh would still be alive.

“This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE,” Christianson said at a news conference. “We were prohibited, law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh. I’m suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasn’t restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.

There’s more bad news for the pro-illegal immigrant cause. It turns out that common sense is correct and that illegal immigrants really are more dangerous and more violent than the rest of us.

…an overwhelming amount of data that shows that illegal aliens not only commit more crimes at a higher rate, that is than lawful residents, but more serious crimes at a far higher rate than lawful residents.

It’s not fair to base your argument on evidence from TX since this state is an outlier. More representative data comes from AZ. As the author points out:

John Lott did probably the most methodologically rigorous and comprehensive examination of this by using Arizona Department of Corrections data, and he went over a 30-year period. This was exhaustive, and this is what he does — he’s a scholar — and what he showed is that illegal aliens don’t just commit more crime or more serious crimes by say, 5 percent more or 10 percent more than awful residents, but by 250 percent more.

The illegal immigrants streaming across the border are far more dangerous than lawful citizens. They are even quite dangerous in comparison to the illegal immigrants with higher education levels who have simply overstayed their visas. We have every reason to fear those who enter the U.S. illegally…they are disproportionately killing the most innocent among us including folks like Mollie Tibbetts.

abl- There is no mention of crime rate in my commentary. Why does crime rate matter for an individual case like this (and others) where the lack of immigration enforcement leads to a murder? The argument has nothing to do with crime rates.

The fact is that if we had enforced the federal law in such cases, these crimes would not have occurred. The entire trajectory of the events would have been disrupted by deportation and border security.

Doctor Drew- How is it possible to get valid controls in such a study? Commonsense would be that by design an immigrant population is going to be more impoverished than the average, perhaps one factor that has nothing to do with legal status?

Also, how can you get a valid study if the nature of liberal sanctuary state and city policy is to decline to find out and document the legal status of people arrested for crime?

It would seem that given the fact that the legal status of arrested persons is by policy not known, there is no way to get any valid correlation?

anon — I was responding to JCD, although I’m not sure why, if I’m being honest.

Re individuals, you’re correct: it’s near-certain that no matter how much less dangerous than the overall population undocumented immigrants are, there will be some instances of bad people doing bad things.

You’re mistaken about what “sanctuary city” policy actually is. Because police can keep undocumented immigrants in jail by filing charges, the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed even a semi-serious crime will not generally be impacted by any “sanctuary city” policies.

Sanctuary cities do not report people to ICE when people are charged with crimes. That is a major part of the policy, and the reason that the Sheriff in the above case (rightfully) blames the policy for this officers murder.

You can argue it makes everyone safer because people will cooperate with police, or be less likely to confront police for fear of deportation when stopped for criminal activity- that is fair.

In this specific case, the man who murdered a police officer was not reported to ICE after several drunk driving charges because of sanctuary policy. That’s just a fact.

As I understand it, the most important variable to control is age. Young people are more likely to be criminals than older people. Nevertheless, even if you control for age, the AZ study showed that illegal immigrants are still far more dangerous than legal residents.

Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

Of course, I think you are right about the general point. There is good reason to be alarmed about how illegal immigrants are killing U.S. citizens. These high visibility instances are representative of the underlying trend. Also, under any kind of merit system, these folks would most likely not be allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

But how can you get valid crime metrics v immigration status when by design immigration status is not reported with criminal activity? If the policy is not to report or register the metric, then there is no possible scientific method.

For example, in the above case, Gustavo Perez Arriaga was not a statistic after two DUI’s. Not until murder of a cop. Most criminal activity will not be known in correlation.

Since the policy is not to correlate, then there is no valid way to know the correlation. No valid statistic.

“We can’t ignore the fact that this could have been preventable,” Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson told reporters, asking why the state was “providing sanctuary for criminals (and) gang members. It’s a conversation we need to have.”

I am going to go with the word of the Sheriff who lives with the policy. The person on the ground that follows sanctuary policies and sees the impact.

Not Vox.

Of course… we could call the Sheriff a liar… and pretend that the policies as stated on government webpages are not the policies.

I understand that you believe sanctuary city policies cause an under-reporting of crime by illegal aliens. You are probably right.

It may also be that illegal aliens are less likely to report crimes in their communities. One of my clients in downtown L.A. for example knows that local businesses are “taxed” by two gangs with roots in Guatemala. Apparently, no one is reporting these multiple crimes of extortion to the L.A. police department.

Nevertheless, if we are going to persuade people that illegal immigrants are too dangerous to tolerate, then I think we need to step back and rely on the best available evidence. Even if that evidence is incomplete, we can weigh its quality and then extrapolate the results based on the underlying theory.

For example, it may be that too many illegal immigrants are practicing what Ann Coulter would call a primitive peasant culture in which the lives of children are devalued, where violence against women is rampant, and where educational achievement is less important than in the U.S. It makes sense that people enmeshed in such a backward culture are bringing disaster to their home countries while importing the same hateful, dysfunctional values into the U.S.

Given this theory, we should not be surprised that illegal immigrants tend to be more dangerous and violent than legal U.S. residents or that so many illegal immigrants would show callous disregard for their own children as we have witnessed in recent months.

As you may know, Coulter was one of my very first students when I was a TA at Cornell. Check out this article for more…

The law says exactly that in plain English. Although you can feel free to explain how a law that is written with major portions of the law restricting officers authorities to report legal status following arrests does not do- exactly that?

You obviously do not trust law enforcement. I think the sheriff has an important and valid perspective on how the law impacts his officersand community safety. I think we should listen to the sheriff and give his voice creedance, rather than belittle it.